Hi rivette
I think our differences are manily "semantics".
Don't look just at the terms "Armies", "Corps" or "Divisions" than may have been used before.
Look at the in game effects of the armies/corps/divisions organization. This chain of command game mechanism try to represented a level of coordination and organization and an armies sizes not achieved until XIX century.
You seem to have AACW and have played it.
Do you really think that the level of efficiency and flexibility given by mechanisms like marching to the sound of guns to participate on adjacent regions battle or the huge command points savings that corps and divisions suppose (which enable you to form armies 100.000 men strong and up with perfect command efficiency) are adequate to represent the way the semiprofessional patriot army or the inflexible and lumbering British armies fought on the AIW??
I certainly don't.
On WIA you just play with normal stacks, which suppose you cannot put together huge number or troops without incurring on CP, and that coordination between different stacks is limited.
IMHO; it represents the S.XVIII way of war much better. The era flavor of the game play flow is great IMHO
I hope you agree with me when you try the game
Regarding the 1812 campaign, no there is no chain of command there.
But you don't miss it as for what i know the biggest armies that fought on it were under 10.000 men strength.
No need of divisions, corps or armies. The scale of the war was totally different.
Regards!